Why Jackson Can Get Away With Talk Of A `Partnership`

But it is part of Jesse Jackson`s charm, genius and arrogance that he can change the rules, or at least the terms of the debate.

Four years ago Hart came to the Democratic National Convention with the support of 1,200 delegates, slightly more than 30 percent of the convention, but there was no talk about some kind of ``partnership`` between him and Mondale, who had almost 1,000 more delegates.

This week, Jackson came to the convention with the support of 1,151 delegates, less than 28 percent of the total, and not half as many as Michael Dukakis. But Jackson insists that this strength entitles him to a ``place at the table,`` and a partnership agreement which would make him a separate power center in Dukakis` campaign and administration.

It is a move brilliant in its arrogance, the proof of which is that no one has challenged the political-intellectual assumption behind his claim. Which is that the American political system is, or ought to be, one of proportional representation, so that the candidate who gets a quarter of the primary vote gets to choose a quarter of the seats on the Democratic National Committee, a quarter of the positions on the presidential campaign staff, perhaps even a quarter of the members of the new Cabinet.

Which is not, of course, the way things work here. But Jackson`s genius is that he knows never to argue the theoretical point, an argument he would lose, but simply to proceed as though everyone shared his assumption, secure in the knowledge that no one will challenge him lest they be considered racist, or, worse, boring.

In a private conversation, someone did challenge one of Jackson`s more prominent supporters, a man of uncommon intelligence and sophistication, who was asked how Jackson could make demands of Dukakis and the Democratic establishment which earlier losers would never dare make.

``Because,`` said the Jackson backer, ``this is a special situation. Because Jesse Jackson is not an ordinary runner-up.``

True enough, but how about being honest about the real reasons. Jackson and some of his supporters like to say that he is different because he represents ``the progressive wing`` of the Democratic Party. But Udall and Kennedy represented that same wing, unless the Jackson people are really referring to the Far Left, a tiny band of activists who have formed more organizations than they have people, and whose numbers would barely entitle them to any representation at all, even under proportional representation.

Besides, if policy and ideology were really at issue here, Jackson`s priorities would not be his ``relationship`` with Dukakis. Real radicals don`t worry about ego, money or status. They ``keep their eyes on the prize,`` in the words of the old left-wing folk song. In his negotiations with Dukakis, Jackson was willing to sacrifice platfom planks about poor women in return for higher salaries for those of his supporters who would join the Dukakis campaign staff.

No, the real reason this is ``a special situation`` is that Jackson is the choice of and the spokesman for the black people of America. The unspoken assumption behind Jackson`s claim that he is owed extraordinary consideration is that both the Democratic Party and the nation owe a special consideration to blacks.

So they do, and not primarily because blacks are the most loyal Democratic voters. The central position which blacks hold on the national conscience and the national consciousness need not be argued. And the nation knows it; hardly a poll has been taken in the last decade which did not show overwhelming support for an end to racial discrimination and the enhanced equality of opportunity.

Knowing all this, Jackson has used it to enhance both his own political career and his own agenda for improving the lives of blacks in America. His particular prescriptions are far less popular than the goal of equality. He is probably not the black partner most white political leaders would choose. For now, though, he is the one they have.